Abstract: In order to explore the differences and applicability of geological disaster risk assessment models and methods under different plotting scales, the authors took Huangxikou Town in Hunan Province as the study area and selected 8 evaluation indicators, such as engineering geological petrofabric and slope structure, to assess the geological disaster risk under 1∶50,000 scale with grid unit using information model, on the basis of disaster geological survey map unit. The results show that the low, medium, high, and extremely high risk areas in the study region account for 32.0%, 24.6%, 38.0%, and 5.4% respectively of the total area. One hundred and sixty-one slope units were divided using hydrological methods and manual intervention methods, and 17 indicators and 30 factors under the categories of the possibility, intensity, category and quantity of disaster-bearing bodies and vulnerability of geological disasters, were selected to construct an analytic hierarchy process grading model. The 1∶10,000 scale risk assessment of geological disasters with slope as the basic unit was carried out, and 84 low-risk slopes, 49 medium-risk slopes, 24 high-risk slopes, and 4 extremely high-risk slopes were identified within the key study area. Due to the influence of survey accuracy and evaluation methods, the assessment results of the two model methods for the same location are not entirely consistent. Therefore, it is advisable to select an appropriate evaluation method based on survey accuracy and research depth. For geological disaster risk assessments in areas under small and medium scales, the information quantity evaluation model based on quantitative calculations using mathematical statistics is recommended, with characteristics of simple, easy to promote, and efficient in modeling, making it suitable for regional promotion. For geological disaster risk assessments in key areas under large scales, the multi-indicator scoring and grading evaluation model on the basis of hierarchical analysis is recommended based on detailed slope unit survey results. These evaluation indicators are detailed and easy to understand, allowing for risk assessments of individual slope units, which is suitable for slope management and dynamic updates of slope risks. This study results could provide some references for the selection and application of geological disaster risk evaluation methods under different scales.